-
The VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
D&D 3E/3.5 Alignment Restrictions in 3.5
- Thread starter Merlion
- Start date
DreamChaser
Explorer
Please ignore history in discussions like this. the Knightly Code of Honor was a pleasant myth dreamed up by writers hundreds of years after "knights" even existed...and besides, this is not history, it is fantasy.
The core of this discussion is set between two choices; you either
a) believe that the paladin is an archetype in and of itself and that that archetype is based upon honor, loyalty, and goodness.
or
b) believe that a paladin is a holy champion of some type.
They are really very different animals and discussing the two in one thread is very hard.
On another note:
The issue here is whether torture is a chaotic (ie more concerned with individuality) act or an evil (pursuing your own goals regardless of who is harmed) act. I would say it is evil. I would go so far as to say that any Ends Justifies the Means philosophy is more Neutral Evil than Neutral Good.
Especially in a fantasy game where there are truth spells and mind probes, using torture is not necessary, it is merely expedient and choosing expedience over a non-cruel slower course is not merely amoral, it is immoral.
On another note, people speak of neutrality as if it is a thing. It is not. It is the absence of a thing. To say that a neutral character believes something is false. They are identified by what they don't believe (except the "balance" theory of true neutral). A neutral good character is concerned only for the greater good and does not concern herself with tradtion, free will, honor, or change. A lawful neutral character is concerned with order and tradition but is unconcerned with good or evil.
In my opinion, in a nutshell,
Truth, tradition, honor = lawful
Free-will, change, cutting edge = chaotic
Preservation of life, helping others, compassion = good
Lack of concern for life, selfishness, cruelty = evil
In my mind, the paladin is a warrior who follows a tradition of pursuing the greatest good by the greatest means, never compromising honor for good or vice versa. This is lawful good.
Of course, I don't use the alignment system anymore so this whole argument is a little moot for me.
JMHO
DC
The core of this discussion is set between two choices; you either
a) believe that the paladin is an archetype in and of itself and that that archetype is based upon honor, loyalty, and goodness.
or
b) believe that a paladin is a holy champion of some type.
They are really very different animals and discussing the two in one thread is very hard.
On another note:
The issue here is whether torture is a chaotic (ie more concerned with individuality) act or an evil (pursuing your own goals regardless of who is harmed) act. I would say it is evil. I would go so far as to say that any Ends Justifies the Means philosophy is more Neutral Evil than Neutral Good.
Especially in a fantasy game where there are truth spells and mind probes, using torture is not necessary, it is merely expedient and choosing expedience over a non-cruel slower course is not merely amoral, it is immoral.
On another note, people speak of neutrality as if it is a thing. It is not. It is the absence of a thing. To say that a neutral character believes something is false. They are identified by what they don't believe (except the "balance" theory of true neutral). A neutral good character is concerned only for the greater good and does not concern herself with tradtion, free will, honor, or change. A lawful neutral character is concerned with order and tradition but is unconcerned with good or evil.
In my opinion, in a nutshell,
Truth, tradition, honor = lawful
Free-will, change, cutting edge = chaotic
Preservation of life, helping others, compassion = good
Lack of concern for life, selfishness, cruelty = evil
In my mind, the paladin is a warrior who follows a tradition of pursuing the greatest good by the greatest means, never compromising honor for good or vice versa. This is lawful good.
Of course, I don't use the alignment system anymore so this whole argument is a little moot for me.
JMHO
DC
mmmm, contradictions.
To be concerned only for the greater good is to do anything to further it. Even if the rational behind it is the ol' Ends Justifies the Means philosophy. Hence, you just stated that neutral evil and neutral good are the same. They aren't. Neutral good is for the greater good. Neutral evil is for the greater selfishness of ones self. After all, being neutral evil means never having to say sorry.
Look up the word moral. One of it's definitions is relating to duty or obligation.
An other one is Acting upon or through one's moral nature or sense of right, or suited to act in such a manner; as, a moral arguments; moral considerations. Now, how can something be amoral if in one's moral nature or sense of right they believe it is right to do what they are doing/did/will do? After all, amoral is the lack of moral standards. If one has those standards how can they be amoral?
LuYangShih
First Post
Berk said:
Might makes right? You should commit evil acts if you have a "good reason"? That doesn't make sense. If we are talking about the D&D alignment system, it clearly states motivations do not matter, the acts themselves are the definition of whether something is good or evil. A position I wholeheartedly agree with. Countless evil men in history, fantasy and myth have claimed the evils they commited were justified because they had "good intentions" or a "just cause". Saying or believing such didn't make the acts they commited any less evil.
I'm not going to get into an argument about real world morality, here, as it would take too long and lead nowhere. The fact of the matter is, actions in the D&D world are evil or good not by the motivations behind them, but by the actions themselves. Torturing someone, regardless of the reasons, is always wrong. Murdering an innocent, regardless of the reasons, is always wrong. If you don't like it, you're free to go post a thread in House Rules decrying the alignment system, but the fact is that is how it's supposed to work in the D&D world, and for good reason.
Last edited:
FreeTheSlaves
Adventurer
I am sorry to hijack things with my paladin yabba, alignment is much more than paladins.
All characters have alignment and even those "without" this system have it.
You can not have alignments but you should get players to write up what they mean. Currently alignment is more a declaration of how the player intends to run their character "in character".
If I did not have alignment, I would demand that players write half an A4 page (the same amount as is written in the PHB) on how they intend to run their character. This and everytime they differed from how they intended to run their character, i.e. changed alignment, I would say "why are you jerking us around, play your ****en character or leave". I do not have time for high maintainence players giving me a declaration of this is what they are playing and then deciding it is not convenient. I spend time making custom adventures for my players characters to kick bootie and they can't yank my chain.
That said, changing alignment deliberately is fine because player X tells me that LN sux and they wanna be N. I got a week and there is no probs with that. It is the "involuntary" change that rips me because Mr noble starts behaving like a hood.
Alignment is shorthand to the DM. I find out that, say, wilderness exploration is what they want and they want to be CG: doing right their way. Players poo-pooing their alignment are game saboteurs.
All characters have alignment and even those "without" this system have it.
You can not have alignments but you should get players to write up what they mean. Currently alignment is more a declaration of how the player intends to run their character "in character".
If I did not have alignment, I would demand that players write half an A4 page (the same amount as is written in the PHB) on how they intend to run their character. This and everytime they differed from how they intended to run their character, i.e. changed alignment, I would say "why are you jerking us around, play your ****en character or leave". I do not have time for high maintainence players giving me a declaration of this is what they are playing and then deciding it is not convenient. I spend time making custom adventures for my players characters to kick bootie and they can't yank my chain.
That said, changing alignment deliberately is fine because player X tells me that LN sux and they wanna be N. I got a week and there is no probs with that. It is the "involuntary" change that rips me because Mr noble starts behaving like a hood.
Alignment is shorthand to the DM. I find out that, say, wilderness exploration is what they want and they want to be CG: doing right their way. Players poo-pooing their alignment are game saboteurs.
I never said anything about might makes right or that you should commit evil acts if you have a "good reason". And yes, the acts themselves are the definition of whether something is good or evil. But we were talking morality, because that is what judges if something is evil or good. To be moral is to have standards, if one has those standards then they are moral. Alignment is just a set of those standards. What is wrong to good isn't to evil and so forth. Most people I feel interpret alignment far more then they should. Yes alignments such as good and evil represent the greater forces of good and evil in the cosmos but then again, they really don't. How many times have we seen, in real world history and in fantasy, evil (bad) guys go good, and good guys go bad. It is just a changing of moral standards. And those moral standards are what alignment represent.
I am willing to forgo a lot more of my rant about this for the sake of saving the thread from a political nightmare that I would most likely create.
Shard O'Glase
First Post
Merlion said:
And it sounds as if Arcana Unearthed shall delver that. About 1/2 way down, The Champion.
http://www.montecook.com/diary.html
